Federal high Court sitting in Abuja has dismissed Senator Adamu Bulkachuwa suit seeking to stop DSS and ICPC from probing him over comment of his wife bending laws for him and his friends during a valedictory session of the 9th Assembly. The presiding judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo in his ruling held that the suit lacked merit and therefore stroked it out. The judge said Senator Bulkachuwa being a lawyer out to have understood the weight of his statement he made publicly during the valedictory session on the floor of the senate.
According to the judge, the legislative immunity he claimed in his case was not available to him.
The judge revealed that “It is the duty of every law-abiding citizen to assist and cooperate with law enforcement agencies in their quest to carry out their statutory function.
He said, “It is only where a law enforcement agency breaches the fundamental right of a citizen in the process of carrying out their statutory function, then a cause of action could be said to have arisen.”
Filed in the suits of Bulkachuwa were the Attorney General of the Federation, AGF, the National Assembly Clerk, State Security Service, the ICPC and the Nigerian police as defendants respectively.
He demanded that the court should declare that he made such statement as “is covered, privileged and protected by the parliamentary immunity as enshrined in Section 1 of the Legislative Houses (Powers and Privileges) Act 2017 and freedom of speech and expression made thereto is privileged.”
He also prayed the court to declare that without exhausting the internal disciplinary mechanism, recommendations and approval of the 9th House of Senate, no other law enforcement agent of the Federal Government, including the defendants can invite any member of the Senate for questioning/interview. However, the Justice such utterance made by Bulkachuwa on the floor of the Debate on June 10 was not covered by Section 39(1) of the 1999 Constitution.
According to the judge, the provision is that every person is entitle to freedom of expression, including freedom to hold and pass opinion and ideas and information void of any interference.
Interpreting the section, the judge said, Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) cannot be interpreted to mean that a person can say anything he likes.
He further explained, “In a formal setting like that plenary session or committee proceedings of the Senate, It is not expected-a person who is privileged to voice any expression will utter words or express opinion or impart Ideas or gives’ Information that cannot be defended under the constitution.
“Upon studying the provision of Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), it Is my opinion, that the words uttered by the plaintiff on the floor of the Senate on Saturday, 10th June, 2023 was a confession of doing an act that is prohibited by law.
“When a person confesses that he influenced a judicial officer to help his friends and colleagues, such a person has gone beyond the limit of freedom of speech that is reasonably covered and protected by the provision of Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended).
The judge therefore said, “A person who has used the opportunity given to him by the constitution to express himself freely and uses the opportunity to expose his actions or conduct which the law of the land criminalises, has unwittingly invited law enforcement agencies to question him.
He therefore ruled that “I therefore find that that the speech of the plaintiff on the floor of the Senate on June 10, was a confession of illegal act and Section 39 (1) of the 1999 Constitution (as amended) cannot be invoked to cover such and I so hold.”
